Partap Chand and Others vs Chiranji Lal and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is plaintiff''s Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Faridkot whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside.

Briefly stated, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession on the basis of title alleging that the defendants have constructed a Kotha with boundary wall in an area measuring 1 kanal forming part of Khasra No. 1226.

The suit was resisted by the defendants who alleged that the site in question was part of Khasra No. 1220. It was further alleged by the defendants that Shiv Chand was the owner of the land measuring 2 Kanals 6 marlas comprising of Khasra No. 1220 and he sold 1 kanal 8 marlas out of this khasra number. Shiv Chand also sold 5 marlas out of khasra No. 1227 to Munshi Singh defendant by means of a registered sale deed.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

Whether Ram Chand is the owner in possession of 2 kanals 1 marla of land out of Khasra No. 1220 ?

Whether Munshi Singh defendant has purchased 1 kanal 8 marlas out of Khasra No. 1220 and 5 Marlas out of Khasra No. 1227 from Shiv Chand defendant on 27-6-1972 ?

Whether Partap Chand, Harnand Lal and Tek Chand plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 3 kanals 13 marlas comprising khasra No. 1226 ?

Whether Munshi Singh defendant has taken forcible and illegal possession of 2 kanals of land out of the land measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas, comprising in khasra No. 1226 ?

5 Whether the land purchased by Munshi Singh and now in his possession is part of khasra Nos 1220 and 1227 and is not part of Khasra No. 1226 ?

Whether plaintiff Ram Chand is entitled to injunction prayed for ?

Whether plaintiffs Partap Chand and others are entitled to possession of suit land ?

The trial Court held that Ram Chand was the owner in possession of 2 Kanals 1 marla; that Munshi Singh had purchased 1 kanal 8 marlas out of Khasra No. 1220 and 5 marlas out. of khasra No. 1227 by means of registered sale deed dated June 27, 1972. The trial Court further held that Partap Chand, Harnand Lal and Tek Chand plaintiffs were the owners of land comprising of Khasra No. 1226. The trial Court further held that Munshi Singh had illegally occupied one Kanal out of khasra No. 1226 out of the land owned by the plaintiffs and accordingly granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

Before the lower appellate court, the matter was once again examined in the light of the evidence on record. The lower appellate Court on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner Shri Balwant Rai came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the land of which possession was sought, formed part of Khasra No. 1226 as alleged. The lower appellate Court further observed that in view of the report of the Commissioner, no useful purpose will be served by re-appointing another Commissioner. Resultantly, the appeal was accepted and judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by the lower Appellate Court.

Learned counsel has contended that the lower Appellate Court erred in law in relying upon the report of Commission. He further submitted that the Local Commissioner did not follow the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner u/s 101 of the Punjab Revenue Act and in this way, no reliance ought to have been placed on such a report. According to the counsel, measurements were to be taken from pucca thadas as demarcated by the Revenue Authorities. Since the measurements were taken without exact location of this pucca thadas, the same has resulted in giving a distorted picture.

The report of the Local Commissioner (Exhibit P 7) has been reproduced by the lower Appellate Court in para No. 12 of the judgment which is in confirmity with the provisions of Punjab Revenue Act. Besides, no objection was raised by the plaintiffs with regard to the report of the Local Commissioner. Even otherwise, this being a finding of fact, is not amenable to jurisdiction u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. No other arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.

Finding no merit in the appeal, I dismiss the same. Parties, however are directed to bear their own costs.